<p>"Observers with SHORT SHORT memories should be reminded that the independent counsel probe led by Kenneth Starr did not merely examine all of the Clintons’ bank statements, mortgage documents, legal records and tax returns over a period stretching back to the '80s, but dragged many of their friends, associates and employees before a grand jury to interrogate them under oath about the Clintons. Following six years of intense investigation, the partisan prosecutor had little to show beyond that stained blue dress – and nothing that plausibly implicated Hillary Clinton in any significant wrongdoing. Starr and his staff wanted to send her to jail, and spent more than $50 million searching for the evidence to support an indictment. That doesn’t include the Senate Whitewater Committee, led by Alfonse D’Amato, which wasted plenty of money and time to find … nothing.</p>
<p>Of course, those episodes concluded almost a decade ago. But the same investigations continued in a different form, conducted by the reporters who were hired to write expensive Hillary Clinton biographies for big publishers. But again, despite the strong incentive to produce dirt, the recent books by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta and by Carl Bernstein revealed little that was even unflattering, let alone incriminating, aside from the usual recycled gossip. Those Pulitzer-winning professionals, eager to expose whatever scandal might exist, no matter how minor, likewise discovered nothing. "</p>
<p>simba, maybe you did miss your steroid dose. I am sorry that you are so depenedent on them. Ken Starr has nothing to do with the post White House Clintons!</p>
<p>Even though they are anxious to get back, the Clintons have been out of the White House for a while. I think the Obama campaign is more interested in the post White House finances. For example, why hasn’t she released last year’s (2006)tax return yet? Her accountants are busy xeroxing something? ;)</p>
<p>Can you explain why she hasn’t provided her 2006 returns yet?</p>
<p>Is Clinton required to show her tax reports to the public or are people just asking that she do so out of full disclosure? If she’s not required this sounds very much like the Monica Lewinsky fiasco that democrats were complaining about in the late 90’s: “personal lives don’t matter.”</p>
<p>Obama’s campaign has it right. It is clearly a disclosure issue. Again a Clinton double standard? :eek: </p>
<p>“The point of vetting and scrutiny raises questions about them [the Clinton campaign],” Plouffe said. “They act like any question about them” is off limits.</p>
<p>He went on to cite again that the Clintons have not released their full tax returns, including “schedules” for the past six years. “They can go to Kinko’s and do that,” Plouffe said. He said the tax returns could answer questions about Hillary and Bill Clinton’s “relationship with individuals who have ethical digressions.” He added, “We want full and complete accounting, including schedules. If they don’t do that, it raises huge red flags. …”</p>
<p>“At same time she’s trumpeting her experience, she’s preventing the American people from reviewing that experience by releasing these documents. If she’s not open and honest in this campaign, you have to wonder if she’ll be open and honest as president….</p>
<p>“We don’t need more George Bush secrecy in the White House.”"</p>
<p>simba, she is running now. But playing by her own rules. The 2006 tax information has been requested recently and you know that. By the way, many would argue that she WAS running for President in 2006. The media had her as the inevitable nominee as far back as 2005 I think. Many would argue that has been running for President for quite some time. (maybe even a lifetime…:D)</p>
<p>I don’t know if she is required to, but that may not really be the point. If she has agreed to do it in April, why not now? The 2006 returns were filed a year ago. They can not be altered now! Again it raises questions. If there is nothing to hide, why not release them? Why release information after the primaries?</p>
<p>Obama has released his.</p>
<p>Clinton has not been completely vetted, yet she continues to challenge Obama on personal (unproven) issues, and refuses to address her own.</p>
<p>To me the issue is not necessarily what is in those returns (since we don’t know) but what possible reason she could have for not realeasing them. Like someone else said; it involves photocopying. First she said when she was the democrataic candidate and now she says April 15. If there is nothing to hide, then what is she up to? That’s the whole reason I don’t like her. I don’t feel like I can trust a thing she says. </p>
<p>Almost everyone agrees that Clinton and Obama are very similar on the issues. The matter of experience is almost tied. That is if you don’t count her years as First Lady of either Arkansas or the U.S. Which I don’t. That leaves integrity, personality and the fact that I am tired of being embarassed when the President of the U.S. speaks while I’m overseas.</p>
<p>I can’t think of one instance where Obama has either lied or distorted a fact beyond recognition. And I don’t think he is either hiding anything, or has anything to hide. I feel exactly the opposite about Clinton.</p>
<p>The practice of Presidential candidates releasing their tax information is not without precedent. Candidates have been doing this for many, many years in the interest of full disclosure—to allay any questions about ethics violations (either of spirit or law), or potential conflicts of interest. This is not an unreasonable request, and the Clintons, hardly political novices, are well aware of this. You’d better believe that if they had released their tax returns, and Obama had not, they would be relentless in demanding that he do so. In fact, you can be sure that they would have already made this issue the point of a campaign commercial. I can just hear them now, speculating about what “Senator Obama has to hide”…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Likewise, it’s only a matter of time before John McCain will be pressured to release his own tax records. It doesn’t take a degree in rocket science to know that, in politics, financial incentives to compromise one’s ethics are as ubiquitous as sand on a beach. That’s why it’s “our business” to have access to our political leaders’ financial records.</p>
<p>I like how nobody has ever once wondered why Obama released his tax forms before everyone else. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if your opponent has a sketchy background concerning the use of her wealth, the best thing to do is draw attention to it. But Obama is a good enough politician to look like an angel while doing so. </p>
<p>Maybe it’s my youthful cynicism or Machiavellian ideas of politics, but it seems to me that Obama, not Hillary, is the one being manipulative. Maybe he has a perfect tax record, but that doesn’t mean he’s not playing the same political game that’s been going on for years, and playing it very well.</p>
<p>Edit: That last paragraph seemed to imply that Hillary wasn’t being manipulative. She obviously is. But what I’m trying to say is that The Golden Boy is not really offering us as much change as he’s telling us.</p>
<p>Zamzam- So now Obama is being manipulative because he has released his records as soon as he announced his intention to run. Oh, it MUST be because he knew that his opponent wouldn’t and this would give him something to hit her with! Of course!
Sorry, but I find this hilarious. Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Maybe he released his tax returns because that is what presidential candidates have traditionally done since about 1984, in the name of transparency- or is that just too straightforward for it to be possible?</p>
<p>They usually do it during general election. If you think releasing his tax return so early had only noble motives, you really need to learn politics 101.</p>
<p>OB supporters are barking on a wrong tree. I was her, I wouldn’t release it either. Let it become a big issue, and when I release it with nothing to hide harp on the immaturity of the opponent.</p>
<p>I don’t see it that way at all. I’m a democrat, and I want to win in November.
Waiting until the general election to see what the two candidates might look like going after McCain matters to me. I don’t care what McCain is hiding because I wouldn’t vote for him anyway, but in deciding between two democrats, it does make a difference. It’s especially important with Hilary, because her (and Bills’) baggage is already so heavy, we need to know what we’re going to be dealing with.</p>
<p>Off topic question/ comment, but still related. (Didn’t want to start new thread.)</p>
<p>Many of the mainstream media types have called Bill Clinton a “masterful” politician who is always “strategizing” the next move. I find it interesting and disturbing that Bill Clinton is now feeding the media subtle hints that Clinton- Obama would be an unstoppable team. </p>
<p>Does anyone else find it offensive that the Clinton tag team is suggesting that Obama would be an unstoppable VP candidate, when Obama seems to have more momentum and support from everyone but the Clinton machine as the Presidential candidate nomination for the party? Is Hillary offering to run as VP?</p>
<p>Isn’t it a bit ironic that this same totally inexperienced naive empty suit could be just a breath away from the Presidency? </p>
<p>Very good point, 1sokkermom. Hilary said that she and Mcain are ready to be commander in chief, but Obama just makes good speeches. Yet he’d be a great VP! Hmmm. Either Hilary thinks that it’s not important for the VP to step into the role of the president if something were to happen to her, or they are not telling us the truth that he would be a great VP. </p>
<p>Or the whole idea of Obama not being ready is BS and they know it… ya think?</p>
<p>Just a few thoughts for your question, Simba.<br>
I have been very impressed with the way Obama has run his grass roots campaign and the way they’ve been able to organize and mobilize those working for them, as well as inspire the voters. I believe that his stance on the issues has been constistant, and formed over the span of his 11 years in his state and US legislature and during his work as a young lawyer and community organizer. I think he is a principled person- yes, a politician, but one with the right priorities. Also, I really like his message of bringing in the voices that are not usually heard to help turn the country around. I feel this is an extremely important asset at this time, as so many feel cynical and disenfranchised.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t see any reason to think he’s not “ready” as, at 47, he will be older than John Kennedy and Bill Clinton (and Abraham Lincoln for that matter) were when they took office. He’s not some new kid on the block, but an experienced legislator. I like a lot of the democrats who support him, (Kennedy, Bradley, Kerry, Daschle, Feingold among many others) and think that if there were really any doubts about his competence, they would not have stepped up.
For me, character counts as much ,if not more, than experience. When I compare the two against this measure, he wins.</p>
<p>The Clinton’s are so good at manipulation: Bill Clinton alludes to Senator Obama being the VP-not Hillary- even though Obama is ahead by more than 100 delegates and is ahead in the popular vote so far. I don’t think he is saying Hillary would be a good VP (even though so far she is the runner-up). The Clintons also negate the results of states where African-Americans vote, the West, the votes of young and suburbans. Clintons assume that the power is theirs-and deny the power of the voters.</p>
</p>